Text

Prakhar Nagar vs State of UP

---

Case Comment: Prakhar Nagar vs State of UP & 4 Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(AB) 244
Council:
For the petitioner:
• Siddharth Khare
• Jigar khare
For the Respondent:
• Rahul Chaudhary
• C.S.C.
• Rahul Chaubey

Introduction
The case of “Prakhar Nagar vs State of UP and 4 Others” is a legal dispute that holds considerable importance due to its importance on the fundamental rights of an individual, specifically focusing on issues related to the right to life, personal liberty, and the right to privacy. This case revolves around the detention of Prakhar Nagar. A citizen of Uttar Pradesh, by the state authorities, raised significant questions about the legality and constitutionality of his detention, as well as the violation of his fundamental rights. Through this case introduction, we will provide a brief overview of the central parties, the circumstances leading to the detention, and the key constitutional rights at stake. This sets the stage for a comprehensive analysis of the legal arguments, court proceedings, and the potential broader implications of the case.

Facts of the case
In the case of “Prakhar Nagar vs State of UP and 4 Others”, the petitioner, was a student pursuing B.Tech(Computer Science and Engineering) at a university, i.e., Amity School of Engineering & Technology. The petitioner challenged the punishment of rustication imposed on him. The initial order, dated 25.02.2020, had imposed a six-month rustication period, and an appeal reduced it to three months through an order dated 16.03.2020. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the issuance of a fresh marks sheet reflecting his performance out of 100 marks, the removal of certain negative endorsements, and the removal of a marks “B Cap” limitation on his marks.
The university had charged the petitioner with acts of indiscipline based on a student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) meeting held on 11th February 2020. The charges included violations of the student's code of conduct and various other acts involving moral turpitude, bribery, disruption of academic functioning, and encouraging disruptive activities.
The petitioner’s counsel raised several arguments, including that the charges were vague and of a general nature, the orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, there was no sufficient material to justify the punishment and the punishment was disproportionate.
On the other hand, the respondents-University argued that the charges were serious and supported by material evidence, and the punishment was proportionate to deter others from similar actions.
The High Court presided over by Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, found in favor of the petitioner. It held the charges against the petitioner were vague, the order was passed in violation of Natural Justice, and the punishment was disproportionate.

Issues
The issues which arose out of the case were:
1. Were the charges against the petitioner specific and supported by sufficient evidence?
2. Did the university follow the principles of natural justice while imposing the punishment?
3. Was the punishment of rustication proportionate to the alleged misconduct?
4. Was there a balance between punitive measures and a reformative approach in dealing with disciplinary actions in the university?

Arguments
Arguments from the petitioner
The petitioner, in challenging the university’s disciplinary action through a Writ petition, presented the following arguments :-

1. Vague Charges:
The petitioner contended that the charges leveled against them by the university were vague and lacked the necessary specificity, they argued that without clear and specific details of the alleged acts of indiscipline, it was exceedingly difficult for the petitioner to formulate an effective defense.

2. Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioner asserted that the disciplinary process conducted by the university violated the principles of natural justice. Specifically, they argued that they were never provided with a proper chargesheet containing specific details of the alleged acts of indiscipline. This lack of transparency and the denial of an opportunity to respond effectively compromised their rights to a fair hearing.

3. Ex-Parte Inquiry Concerns:
The petitioner raised concerns about the manner in which the disciplinary inquiry was conducted. They claim that it was conducted in an ex-parte manner, meaning that the petitioner was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to present their side of the story and counter the allegations against them. This, the petitioner argued, was a violation of due process.

4. Proportionality of Punishment:
The petitioner questioned the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the university. They contended that rustication, even for a reduced period of three months, was a disproportionately serve punishment for the alleged acts of indiscipline they were accused of committing. This punishment, they argued, would have significant adverse consequences on their academic record and future prospects.

5. Reformation and Fair Treatment
The petitioner emphasized the importance of a reformative approach in disciplinary matters within educational institutions. They argued that the university’s disciplinary actions should strike a balance between discipline and providing students with opportunities to learn from their mistakes and reintegrate into the academic community. The petitioner contended that the university’s actions were excessively punitive and failed to consider the potential for reformation.
6. Guidelines and Compliance:
The petitioner referenced the guidelines issued by the University Grant Commission(UGC), which aimed at incorporating a reformation-focused approach in disciplinary matters. They argued that the university’s actions should align these guidelines to ensure fairness and a balanced outcome.

Arguments from the Respondent:
The respondent, in defending the university’s disciplinary action against the petitioner, put forth a set of arguments aimed at justifying the decision and countering the petitioner’s claims.
1. Specific Acts of Indiscipline:
The respondent contended that the petitioner had indeed engaged in specific acts of indiscipline during their academic tenure. Although the exact nature of these acts is not explicitly detailed in the case summary, the respondent argued that the university’s disciplinary action was a necessary response to maintain the integrity of the institution’s code of conduct and ensure an orderly academic environment.

2. Compliance with disciplinary Process:
The respondent asserted that the university adhered to its established disciplinary process. They claimed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the university’s policies and guidelines, ensuring that the petitioner had an opportunity to present their case.

3. Proportionality of Punishment:
The respondent defended the proportionality of the initial punishment of six months of rustication. They argued that such a measure was a reasonable response to the alleged acts of indiscipline, considering their seriousness. The subsequent reduction of the punishment to three months, the respondent argued, demonstrated the university’s willingness to reevaluate the severity of the punishment while still holding the petitioner accountable.

4. Deterrence and Consequences:
The respondent highlighted the importance of disciplinary actions in deterring other students from engaging in similar acts of indiscipline. They emphasized that a robust disciplinary process was essential to maintain the institution’s reputation and ensure a conducive learning environment.

5. Absence of Reformation:
The respondent countered the petitioner’s argument for a reformative approach by asserting that the petitioner had not demonstrated genuine remorse or a willingness to reform their behavior. They contended that the university’s disciplinary action was meant to serve as a deterrent and to address the petitioner’s alleged misconduct, rather than being an opportunity for reformation.

6. Relevance of UGC Guidelines:
The respondent acknowledge the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission(UGC) regarding a reformative approach. However, they argued that these guidelines were not directly applicable to the petitioner’s case, given the nature of the alleged acts of indiscipline and the university’s judgment in determining the appropriate disciplinary action.

Judgment and Analysis:
The Allahabad High Court heard the arguments from both sides and allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The court identified several flaws in the disciplinary process, including vague charges, lack of proper documentation, violation of principles of natural justice, and disproportionate punishment. The Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach that combines deterrence with reformative possibilities in disciplinary actions within educational institutions and mentioned that “Purely punitive actions should not be taken by the universities against students. Students are young adults who must be given an opportunity of reformation1” .

The court ordered the following:-
• The impugned orders of punishment dated 25.02.2020 and 16.02.2020 which imposed rustication for various periods, are declared arbitrary and illegal
• The application of the “B Cap” is deemed unsustainable in law and is set aside.
• The respondent university was directed to issue a fresh marks sheet to the petitioner by treating him as a regular student and evaluating his performance out of 100 marks instead of 70 marks.

Significance:
The case of “Prakhar Nagar vs State of UP and 4 Others” holds several significant points and implications in the context of university discipline, principles of natural justice, and the balance between punitive action, and reformation in the educational system. It also focuses on preserving the rights and future prospects of students.

Some of the key significances of the case are :-
1. Principles of Natural Justice:
The case emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. It highlights that a charge sheet with specific charges and material particulars must be served to the accused, and the accused must be given a fair opportunity to present their defense. Failure to follow these principles can render the disciplinary proceedings invalid.

2. Vagusness of Charges:
The case underscores that charges against a student must be clear and specific, and the charges should not be vague or general. Vague charges can prejudice the accused’s defense and invalidate the disciplinary action.

3. Ex-Parte Enquiry:
The judgment highlights the issue of conducting an ex- parte inquiry, which means an inquiry without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. Such inquiries, when conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, can lead to the quashing of the resulting orders. As they lack procedural fairness.

4. Transparency in Record:
The judgment emphasizes that disciplinary records, such as marks sheets, should not carry a reference to disciplinary actions taken against a student, as such disclosures can negatively impact the student’s prospects.

Comment:

If we look into history, then we can see that private educational institutions i.e., schools and colleges which are not made or funded by the government, usually do not go by the rules and generally do as they will i.e., arbitrarily. This case of Prakhar Nagar vs State of UP and 4 Others will serve as a landmark judgment where the court directed such educational institutions to go according to the procedure established by the law.

This case summary has been submitted by Pranjal Yadav, B.A.L.L.B.( Hons.) United University, Prayagraj.

---

Detail Information

Title

-

Court

Allahabad : civil.,

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

2023:AHC:154973

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Council: For the petitioner: • Siddharth Khare • Jigar khare For the Respondent: • Rahul Chaudhary • C.S.C. • Rahul Chaubey

Statement of Responsibility

-

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment